It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is. This controversy over whether or not the state should be involved in marriage is nothing more than a last ditch effort by people who desperately don't want gay marriage to be legal.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/9/2013 9:25:13 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:Should the government be involved in marriage at all? Nevertheless licensing people to get married. Should State take on the responsibilities of religious institutions?

The state isn't taking on those responsibilities, it is taking on the responsibilities of enforcing/establishing benefits for those who are married, regardless of whom officiates.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is. This controversy over whether or not the state should be involved in marriage is nothing more than a last ditch effort by people who desperately don't want gay marriage to be legal.

Perhaps it is used by some of those people, but it doesn't take away the core issue: what is the purpose of civil marriage (i.e. why does the government offer benefits to marriages)? If there were no benefits offered, the government wouldn't care.

What contract needs to be enforced if there are no civil benefits? After all, why should the government care if I have two wives?

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is. This controversy over whether or not the state should be involved in marriage is nothing more than a last ditch effort by people who desperately don't want gay marriage to be legal.

Perhaps it is used by some of those people, but it doesn't take away the core issue: what is the purpose of civil marriage (i.e. why does the government offer benefits to marriages)?

The government offers these benefits to help couples function more effectively as a single economic unit. Married couples almost invariably share all of their property, so it makes sense that we would give them benefits that make sense, such as being able to jointly file income taxes. This is one thing that is consistent across almost all marriages, even ones which have no children, so it is the best definition of a single "purpose" of civil marriage.

If there were no benefits offered, the government wouldn't care.

That would seem to be more of an indicator that the government wouldn't care rather than any sort of causal relationship that you seem to be implying, but okay.

What contract needs to be enforced if there are no civil benefits? After all, why should the government care if I have two wives?

If it is a simple contract that is drafted by the parties involved on an as-needed bases, it is more efficient for the courts to deal with this if the contract is the same in almost every cases. However, as I have pointed out practical reasons for civil benefits, this isn't particularly applicable. Polygamy would involve so many different possible scenarios to the point where it would be nearly impossible to have any kind of consistency in the enforcement of any one contract used for all polyamorous groupings.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/10/2013 6:05:48 AM, Khaos_MageThe state isn't taking on those responsibilities, it is taking on the responsibilities of enforcing/establishing benefits for those who are married, regardless of whom officiates.

Yes the state is taking on these responsibilities. You don't have to go to a church, a mosque or synagogue to get married. You only need to go to a courthouse to obtain the license. My issue with marriage is the strange mix between romantic love and civil marriage. Historically, romantic love had nothing to do with marriage. In most places in the world, marriages were arranged between two families.

At 12/10/2013 9:09:20 AM, drhead wrote:The government offers these benefits to help couples function more effectively as a single economic unit. Married couples almost invariably share all of their property, so it makes sense that we would give them benefits that make sense, such as being able to jointly file income taxes. This is one thing that is consistent across almost all marriages, even ones which have no children, so it is the best definition of a single "purpose" of civil marriage.

That "one thing" is not true. I personally know a couple who intentionally divorces about every March, then remarry in May. This is a bit extreme. But they do it because together they will be taxed more as married couple than they would be as individuals. Incomes taxes are progressive, so if you and your spouse make over a certain income you will not benefit from taxes while married. Being married has numerous financial dilemmas. Henceforth, why some people claim that marriage is the worse financial mistake a man can make.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

If what we call "civil marriage" were just a contract, it would not be something the IRS would investigate, nor something limited to two and only two parties. Certainly, you could in a free society do SOME of the things legal marriage presently constitutes via a genuine contract, but not all of them.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

If what we call "civil marriage" were just a contract, it would not be something the IRS would investigate, nor something limited to two and only two parties. Certainly, you could in a free society do SOME of the things legal marriage presently constitutes via a genuine contract, but not all of them.

As I have said, there are several ways in which a contract can be struck between polyamorous unions. If we were to update the tax code in order to handle this, then polyamorous unions could certainly be made legal. However, it would be difficult and there is currently only a small minority of people who would actually use such a union, so it is unlikely that this will happen until people actually start pushing for polygamy legalization. Plus, they will need to gain public support, which will not happen for a while.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

Law have nothing to do with love. It simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. Go love your family, friends, or partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that states: "In love".

Just wanna know in what grounds do pro LGBTs want homosexual marriage for.

At 12/10/2013 9:09:20 AM, drhead wrote:The government offers these benefits to help couples function more effectively as a single economic unit. Married couples almost invariably share all of their property, so it makes sense that we would give them benefits that make sense, such as being able to jointly file income taxes. This is one thing that is consistent across almost all marriages, even ones which have no children, so it is the best definition of a single "purpose" of civil marriage.

That "one thing" is not true. I personally know a couple who intentionally divorces about every March, then remarry in May. This is a bit extreme. But they do it because together they will be taxed more as married couple than they would be as individuals. Incomes taxes are progressive, so if you and your spouse make over a certain income you will not benefit from taxes while married. Being married has numerous financial dilemmas. Henceforth, why some people claim that marriage is the worse financial mistake a man can make.

This still does have a rather obvious solution of allowing married couple to file separately at the same tax rate as two unmarried people could. I was mainly referring to the ability to divorce and having a consistent legal process for deciding who gets what property, as well as exemption from estate taxes. These are things that can't be done through regular contracts, since it would put an unnecessary burden on the courts to sort through the terms of the divorce clause of several different marriage contracts (and who wants to have to hire a lawyer in order to get married, anyways?), and if people could simply write "Don't tax my estate when I give it to this person" on a piece of paper and have the government honor it every time, there would be no estate taxes because people would do that for everyone who they want to bequeath their belongings to. There is no practical and efficient way to do these things without civil marriage existing.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/11/2013 1:19:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:Law have nothing to do with love. It simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. Go love your family, friends, or partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that states: "In love".

Just wanna know in what grounds do pro LGBTs want homosexual marriage for.

This is about contracts. Contracts have everything to do with law. Do you believe that the government should enforce contracts?

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

As I have said, there are several ways in which a contract can be struck between polyamorous unions. If we were to update the tax code in order to handle this, then polyamorous unions could certainly be made legal. However, it would be difficult

Would be easy. Just end antipolygamy laws, end marriage laws, delete all references to marriage from government forms, and leave the matter to normal contract law. Nothing legally complicated at all.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

Estate tax exemption is one of the things which would require the government to officially recognize it in order for it to work, since the government would have to be a party to that contract in order to grant such an exemption. Beyond that, it's also quite nice to not need a lawyer to get married in most cases.

As I have said, there are several ways in which a contract can be struck between polyamorous unions. If we were to update the tax code in order to handle this, then polyamorous unions could certainly be made legal. However, it would be difficult

Would be easy. Just end antipolygamy laws, end marriage laws, delete all references to marriage from government forms, and leave the matter to normal contract law. Nothing legally complicated at all.

It doesn't get complicated until one person in the union gets divorced, and then a court has to sort through what belongs to them, and what belongs to the remainder of the union. A poorly written marriage contract could cause this (which would likely happen without a lawyer), and it is much easier when there is a standard contract. Contracts don't enforce themselves. If you or anyone else wants to draft their own marriage contract, then that is fine. You can do that, and the government will honor whatever terms are set forth in the contract. However, when it is actually time for these contracts to be enforced, it is much easier for all parties involved to use the government's own civil marriage contract.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/11/2013 1:19:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:Law have nothing to do with love. It simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. Go love your family, friends, or partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that states: "In love".

Just wanna know in what grounds do pro LGBTs want homosexual marriage for.

This is about contracts. Contracts have everything to do with law. Do you believe that the government should enforce contracts?

Technically, an illegal contract is not considered a contract. So really, it depends on showing whether homosexual marriage should be legal or not. (Hint: Love is not a factor in deciding that)Furthermore, a contract concerning something not considered illegal within the jurisdiction might not be enforced due to it being unreasonable or discouraged. Prostitution and BDSM slave contracts are examples.

Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

Estate tax exemption is one of the things which would require the government to officially recognize it in order for it to work

Why should there be an estate tax?And, if there should be one, why then should spouse inheritors be exempt?

Beyond that, it's also quite nice to not need a lawyer to get married in most cases.

If you don't have the sort of arcane legal system that results from a government that wants to control so much, lawyers are a lot less necessary. It's a marriage between two parties, it's not as though one of them has an army of lawyers to draw up some absurdly hard to understand contract and then the other one needs lawyers to understand it.

As I have said, there are several ways in which a contract can be struck between polyamorous unions. If we were to update the tax code in order to handle this, then polyamorous unions could certainly be made legal. However, it would be difficult

Would be easy. Just end antipolygamy laws, end marriage laws, delete all references to marriage from government forms, and leave the matter to normal contract law. Nothing legally complicated at all.

It doesn't get complicated until one person in the union gets divorced, and then a court has to sort through what belongs to them

You're assuming that they drew up something difficult to sort through.

A poorly written marriage contract could cause this (which would likely happen without a lawyer)

Have you SEEN the kinds of things lawyers write? They make things more difficult, not less.

Then pick a standard promulgated by the marriage equivalent of the Open Source Wish project, or the GNU marriage contract, or whatever. My god, have you never heard of private standards?

ontracts don't enforce themselves. If you or anyone else wants to draft their own marriage contract, then that is fine. You can do that, and the government will honor whatever terms are set forth in the contract.

Under present law that's not actually true. If under your system it becomes true, I think you'll find any state "standard" abandoned rather quickly.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 12/11/2013 1:19:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:Law have nothing to do with love. It simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. Go love your family, friends, or partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that states: "In love".

Just wanna know in what grounds do pro LGBTs want homosexual marriage for.

This is about contracts. Contracts have everything to do with law. Do you believe that the government should enforce contracts?

Technically, an illegal contract is not considered a contract. So really, it depends on showing whether homosexual marriage should be legal or not. (Hint: Love is not a factor in deciding that)

Please point out one thing that would exist in a marriage contract (excluding things that would specifically require the state to be a party, e.g. tax exemptions) which would make it an illegal contract.

Furthermore, a contract concerning something not considered illegal within the jurisdiction might not be enforced due to it being unreasonable or discouraged. Prostitution and BDSM slave contracts are examples.

Comparing gay marriage to prostitution and BDSM? I shouldn't be surprised. As for what is unreasonable, public opinion seems to be trending more and more towards support of same-sex marriage, especially among young people, so what is "unreasonable" to you might not be "unreasonable" to the court in question.

Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

There does not have to be a beneficial social function to homosexuality for there to be equal recognition of a marriage contract, rather, it only needs to be demonstrated that some of the same beneficial social functions shown among straight couples. This has been done with the vast majority of studies on same-sex parenting. Such studies have repeatedly shown that children are raised just as well by same-sex couples as they would be raised by a heterosexual couple. In addition, the benefits offered by civil marriage are shown to benefit the children being raised by the married couple regardless of whether the couple is a same-sex one or a different-sex one. Of course, you're going to simply ignore what people have found by actually performing studies on real people as long as it doesn't agree with your views, so I don't even know why I am pointing this out.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/11/2013 1:24:23 PM, drhead wrote:This still does have a rather obvious solution of allowing married couple to file separately at the same tax rate as two unmarried people could. I was mainly referring to the ability to divorce and having a consistent legal process for deciding who gets what property, as well as exemption from estate taxes. These are things that can't be done through regular contracts, since it would put an unnecessary burden on the courts to sort through the terms of the divorce clause of several different marriage contracts (and who wants to have to hire a lawyer in order to get married, anyways?), and if people could simply write "Don't tax my estate when I give it to this person" on a piece of paper and have the government honor it every time, there would be no estate taxes because people would do that for everyone who they want to bequeath their belongings to. There is no practical and efficient way to do these things without civil marriage existing.

In this case, I am referring to the costs of marriage(social and economic) and alimony if there is a divorce. Sure, contracts are necessary if products are purchased for familial use. But in a lot of cases, divorce courts dish out harsh rulings to the husband usually. The costs of marriage far outweigh the benefits. In this case, I strongly agree with the guy who is about to unleash the Austrian economics on this forum.

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

Estate tax exemption is one of the things which would require the government to officially recognize it in order for it to work

Why should there be an estate tax?

There are a few reasons. My main reason for supporting an estate tax is that it promotes equality of opportunity, i.e. it forces some people to actually work for their living instead of having everything handed to them by their parents. I simply don't think people should succeed by default because they were fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family, but that is purely my opinion.

And, if there should be one, why then should spouse inheritors be exempt?

There are two reasons:1. Many marriages involve one working spouse and one non-working spouse.2. Marriages involve sharing property.

If an estate tax were applied, then the surviving spouse would have to pay estate tax on things that they already own. If the late spouse was the primary income-earner, this could be especially troubling. If you share property with someone, it should be recognized that there is no transfer of ownership involved at all.

In addition, this is hardly an argument against state-recognized marriages while estate taxes still exist. Estate taxes would need to go away first, otherwise a group who needs exemption from estate taxes would be unprotected until the point where estate taxes are repealed.

Beyond that, it's also quite nice to not need a lawyer to get married in most cases.

If you don't have the sort of arcane legal system that results from a government that wants to control so much, lawyers are a lot less necessary. It's a marriage between two parties, it's not as though one of them has an army of lawyers to draw up some absurdly hard to understand contract and then the other one needs lawyers to understand it.

Even a very clearly written contract can have loopholes and oversights. In addition, there are cases where one spouse owns a significantly higher amount of wealth than the other where both parties may agree that a lawyer is needed.

As I have said, there are several ways in which a contract can be struck between polyamorous unions. If we were to update the tax code in order to handle this, then polyamorous unions could certainly be made legal. However, it would be difficult

Would be easy. Just end antipolygamy laws, end marriage laws, delete all references to marriage from government forms, and leave the matter to normal contract law. Nothing legally complicated at all.

It doesn't get complicated until one person in the union gets divorced, and then a court has to sort through what belongs to them

You're assuming that they drew up something difficult to sort through.

A poorly written marriage contract could cause this (which would likely happen without a lawyer)

Have you SEEN the kinds of things lawyers write? They make things more difficult, not less.

Then pick a standard promulgated by the marriage equivalent of the Open Source Wish project, or the GNU marriage contract, or whatever. My god, have you never heard of private standards?

ontracts don't enforce themselves. If you or anyone else wants to draft their own marriage contract, then that is fine. You can do that, and the government will honor whatever terms are set forth in the contract.

Under present law that's not actually true. If under your system it becomes true, I think you'll find any state "standard" abandoned rather quickly.

I'd like to have this explained. Currently, I see no reason why I can't make a contract stating that I want to share my property with someone, along with a termination clause that explains how property is to be divided up should the contract be terminated.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

Estate tax exemption is one of the things which would require the government to officially recognize it in order for it to work

Why should there be an estate tax?

There are a few reasons. My main reason for supporting an estate tax is that it promotes equality of opportunity, i.e. it forces some people to actually work for their living instead of having everything handed to them by their parents.

If equality is your value, universal destruction is the recommended action. No one has any opportunities then. And you certainly weren't speaking of raising up the bottom of opportunities in that sentence.If equality is not your value, this is not a defense of government guns taking estates.

And, if there should be one, why then should spouse inheritors be exempt?

There are two reasons:1. Many marriages involve one working spouse and one non-working spouse.

So it's not okay to be born into a living but perfectly okay to f*** your way into one?

2. Marriages involve sharing property.

So does child-rearing.

In addition, this is hardly an argument against state-recognized marriages while estate taxes still exist. Estate taxes would need to go away first, otherwise a group who needs exemption from estate taxes would be unprotected until the point where estate taxes are repealed.

Exactly why to get rid of marriage first-- to raise the pressure to get rid of estate taxes, by no longer limiting them to emotionally acceptable targets.

Even a very clearly written contract can have loopholes and oversights

You can have general practices about how to resolve contractual ambiguities without forcing everyone into a given contract.

In addition, there are cases where one spouse owns a significantly higher amount of wealth than the other where both parties may agree that a lawyer is needed.

And?

I'd like to have this explained. Currently, I see no reason why I can't make a contract stating that I want to share my property with someone, along with a termination clause that explains how property is to be divided up should the contract be terminated.

Simple. If you happen to cohabit with them, and they're not a legally acceptable marriage target or number of targets, and it's not clearly some sort of adoption relationship, the state charges you with bigamy, or polygamy, or whatever else they banned. If they are a legally acceptable marriage target and there was clearly a cohabiting relationship, the state has this weird tendency to declare the contract you wrote "unfair" and hand out things as it pleases.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 12/11/2013 1:19:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:Law have nothing to do with love. It simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. Go love your family, friends, or partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that states: "In love".

Just wanna know in what grounds do pro LGBTs want homosexual marriage for.

This is about contracts. Contracts have everything to do with law. Do you believe that the government should enforce contracts?

Technically, an illegal contract is not considered a contract. So really, it depends on showing whether homosexual marriage should be legal or not. (Hint: Love is not a factor in deciding that)

Please point out one thing that would exist in a marriage contract (excluding things that would specifically require the state to be a party, e.g. tax exemptions) which would make it an illegal contract.

Which one? Homosexual or heterosexual? Are you implying that they are equal?

Furthermore, a contract concerning something not considered illegal within the jurisdiction might not be enforced due to it being unreasonable or discouraged. Prostitution and BDSM slave contracts are examples.

Comparing gay marriage to prostitution and BDSM? I shouldn't be surprised. As for what is unreasonable, public opinion seems to be trending more and more towards support of same-sex marriage, especially among young people, so what is "unreasonable" to you might not be "unreasonable" to the court in question.

They are personal affairs that supposedly have little to no direct implication on the public unless promoted.So you have logical reasons to implement homosexual marriage?

Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

There does not have to be a beneficial social function to homosexuality for there to be equal recognition of a marriage contract, rather, it only needs to be demonstrated that some of the same beneficial social functions shown among straight couples. This has been done with the vast majority of studies on same-sex parenting. Such studies have repeatedly shown that children are raised just as well by same-sex couples as they would be raised by a heterosexual couple. In addition, the benefits offered by civil marriage are shown to benefit the children being raised by the married couple regardless of whether the couple is a same-sex one or a different-sex one. Of course, you're going to simply ignore what people have found by actually performing studies on real people as long as it doesn't agree with your views, so I don't even know why I am pointing this out.

Then there is no need for homosexual marriage if gender is interchangeable only when it comes to raising children. I am all for giving benefits to people who adopt children as long as they do it right.Are you saying that marriage should be an abstract title?

At 12/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, drhead wrote:It is fully within the duties of the state to enforce contracts, which is what civil marriage is.

I didn't sign no stinkin contract to subsidize your romantic relationship by making up for your special tax treatment, heteroloveydoveyguy. I didn't sign it for the gays either. Sorry, the only relationship I want to pay for is one where I'm in that bedroom.

Then what you should be doing is advocating for reform where married couples would carry their own weight as far as taxation goes. If such an solution exists where both parties can be happy, why advocate for a solution that is detrimental to one side's interests?

What's detrimental to ending the special status of marriage and leaving it to a combination of normal contract law and private practice?

Estate tax exemption is one of the things which would require the government to officially recognize it in order for it to work

Why should there be an estate tax?

There are a few reasons. My main reason for supporting an estate tax is that it promotes equality of opportunity, i.e. it forces some people to actually work for their living instead of having everything handed to them by their parents.

If equality is your value, universal destruction is the recommended action. No one has any opportunities then. And you certainly weren't speaking of raising up the bottom of opportunities in that sentence.If equality is not your value, this is not a defense of government guns taking estates.

And, if there should be one, why then should spouse inheritors be exempt?

There are two reasons:1. Many marriages involve one working spouse and one non-working spouse.

So it's not okay to be born into a living but perfectly okay to f*** your way into one?

2. Marriages involve sharing property.

So does child-rearing.

In addition, this is hardly an argument against state-recognized marriages while estate taxes still exist. Estate taxes would need to go away first, otherwise a group who needs exemption from estate taxes would be unprotected until the point where estate taxes are repealed.

Exactly why to get rid of marriage first-- to raise the pressure to get rid of estate taxes, by no longer limiting them to emotionally acceptable targets.

Even a very clearly written contract can have loopholes and oversights

You can have general practices about how to resolve contractual ambiguities without forcing everyone into a given contract.

In addition, there are cases where one spouse owns a significantly higher amount of wealth than the other where both parties may agree that a lawyer is needed.

And?

I'd like to have this explained. Currently, I see no reason why I can't make a contract stating that I want to share my property with someone, along with a termination clause that explains how property is to be divided up should the contract be terminated.

Simple. If you happen to cohabit with them, and they're not a legally acceptable marriage target or number of targets, and it's not clearly some sort of adoption relationship, the state charges you with bigamy, or polygamy, or whatever else they banned. If they are a legally acceptable marriage target and there was clearly a cohabiting relationship, the state has this weird tendency to declare the contract you wrote "unfair" and hand out things as it pleases.

Thought I might bring this topic back since something very relevant just happened recently that renders what you said false:

This applies to other states as well, presumably (or would if it were challenged). You cannot be charged with bigamy unless you are acquiring multiple marriage licenses. I thought all along that this was an issue that simply did not come up yet... now I know that this is true.

Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian